Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
[...] If
you had speed breaks you would allow the pilot more options to control
descent given that right now the system that governs the RPM/MP has
limited
ability to slow the plane without cutting the throttle.

How is that different from every other airplane without speed brakes,
where
you need to reduce the throttle in order to slow down without changing
your
flight path?


I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination will
slow my plane without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling. Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it. The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

Bottom line is that if a person has speed breaks, he is less likely to
fly
slow because he can shed speed whenever needed.

Dude, seems to me that by now, you've seen "speed brakes" spelled
correctly
often enough that it's time you start doing so yourself.


LOL, thanks, I will try.

Bottom line, the phony Fadec system isn't really all that good.

Funny...lots of people find it works just fine. It's not a FADEC, by the
way.

Pete


Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card", you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly be a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks who
have had engine problems?

Pete

Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through
the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card", you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly be
a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks who
have had engine problems?

Pete

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

No, why should I be?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then
you let anyone buy a membership).

By whom? People who have done extensive testing and actually know? Or one
or two irate owners who have had unusual problems with their airplanes? If
you have the posts, make them publicly available.

The root of the problem is suspected to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend.

Suspected by whom? Anyone who ought to know? Or random armchair mechanics
like those of posting to this thread?

They give the reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I've flown the SR20. I had no trouble at all using partial power reductions
to slow the airplane.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like.

Then why do you keep writing "phony FADEC"? Sure looks like a claim to me.

However, they have commented on how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot.

It *is* simple.

The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

What "sweet spot"? A reduction in power is a reduction in power. Less
power means less thrust which means less speed. There's absolutely no
reason for vertical planning to be "more problematic", no more so than all
the other low-drag airframes out there that also don't have speed brakes.
Nothing about the engine control is relevant here.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on.

Log on to what?

Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
do the same.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You show up here spouting all
sorts of nonsense about how the Cirrus airplanes need speed brakes, and then
you accuse me of having my "level of positive thinking and optimism"
bothered? All I'm doing is pointing out how stupid your claims are. I'm
not bothered at all.

Pete

ignore

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

No, why should I be?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
you let anyone buy a membership).

By whom? People who have done extensive testing and actually know? Or
one
or two irate owners who have had unusual problems with their airplanes?
If
you have the posts, make them publicly available.

The root of the problem is suspected to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend.

Suspected by whom? Anyone who ought to know? Or random armchair
mechanics
like those of posting to this thread?

They give the reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I've flown the SR20. I had no trouble at all using partial power
reductions
to slow the airplane.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like.

Then why do you keep writing "phony FADEC"? Sure looks like a claim to
me.

However, they have commented on how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot.

It *is* simple.

The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

What "sweet spot"? A reduction in power is a reduction in power. Less
power means less thrust which means less speed. There's absolutely no
reason for vertical planning to be "more problematic", no more so than all
the other low-drag airframes out there that also don't have speed brakes.
Nothing about the engine control is relevant here.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on.

Log on to what?

Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
do the same.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You show up here spouting all
sorts of nonsense about how the Cirrus airplanes need speed brakes, and
then
you accuse me of having my "level of positive thinking and optimism"
bothered? All I'm doing is pointing out how stupid your claims are. I'm
not bothered at all.

Pete

Dude,

I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
missed one or two

Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me the
date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
the posts you mentioned.

I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going to
go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is still
small since the fleet is still young.

Thanks,

-Mike

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a thing
as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling, regardless
of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow through
the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an engine
as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
be
a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
who
have had engine problems?

Pete

I see so many Bonanzas with newly rebuilt engines at lower than 700 hrs, it
makes my head spin

so much bull**** on this site


"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
Dude,

I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
missed one or two

Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me
the
date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
the posts you mentioned.

I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going
to
go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is
still
small since the fleet is still young.

Thanks,

-Mike

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected
to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the
reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on
how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest
you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a
thing
as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling,
regardless
of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high
RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow
through
the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an
engine
as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage
to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
be
a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot
frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why
would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
who
have had engine problems?

Pete

I will look for the dates for you.

I do not recall the words "cylinder failure" anywhere, just that there was
major engine work, top overhauls, and fears of needing rebuilds in the near
future.



I see someone
"Mike Murdock" wrote in message
...
Dude,

I am a COPA member, and I read the members forum regularly, and I don't
remember seeing anything about premature cylinder failure. However, since
there are over 50,000 posts there, I'm willing to admit that I might have
missed one or two

Do you still have the COPA posts you were forwarded? If you can give me
the
date they were posted, or the name of the person who posted them, or any
unique keywords from the post, I'd be happy to look them up and post a
synopsis here. I've already searched for "shock cooling" without finding
the posts you mentioned.

I'm sincerely interested since I own an SR22, and if the engine is going
to
go Tango Uniform at 700 hours, I'd like to know. I do know that several
have flown past that mark with no problem, although the sample size is
still
small since the fleet is still young.

Thanks,

-Mike

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Are you a COPA member Peter?

I was forwarded some rather ugly COPA posts (I think its funny that all
the
bad news is in the "members only" section as if it won't get out, and
then
you let anyone buy a membership). The root of the problem is suspected
to
be that pilots are killing the throttle to descend. They give the
reason
for having to kill the throttle as not having the option to reduce power
sufficiently because of the limited settings available to them.

I am not trying to claim that anyone has been advertising the Cirrus
prop
controls as FADEC or even FADEC like. However, they have commented on
how
"simple" the operation of this system is for the pilot. The unintended
consequence of this system is that the pilots are not able to let the
engine
and prop combo run in its sweet spot, and vertical planning becomes more
problematic.

Of course, no one forwards me notes from happy Cirrus customers. If
your
level of positive thinking and optimism is bothered by the subject, you
should not log on. Even I quit watching the local news, and I suggest
you
do the same.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Dude" wrote in message
...
I reduce throttle in my plane, and I can increase rpm. The
combination
will
slow my plane

Reducing throttle in a Cirrus slows the plane down too.

without over cooling the engine. I DO NOT want to get into an
argument about shock cooling.

Then stop making statements that rely on the assumption that shock
cooling
exists.

Whether shock cooling occurs or not does not
change the fact that many pilots fly in ways to avoid it.

So what? First of all, your assumption that high RPM, low throttle
power
settings avoid shock cooling is simply wrong. If there is such a
thing
as
shock cooling, then reducing power will cause shock cooling,
regardless
of
what mix of RPM and MP you use. Additionally, at low throttle, high
RPM
settings, the engine is windmilling, being driven by the airflow
through
the
prop, and is considered by many to be at least as damaging to an
engine
as
shock cooling, if not more so.

Secondly, the fact that "many pilots" fly in a way to try to avoid
something
that does not happen isn't relevant to any rational discussion. Why
would
an aircraft designer install speed brakes just to address some
psychological
need for a pilot to use them, even if there is no practical advantage
to
doing so?

In other words, if you want to play the "avoid shock cooling card",
you'd
better darn well be prepared to argue that "shock cooling" is real.

The Cirrus does
not allow full control over prop and throttle (aka phony fadec)

It's not a FADEC. It's not advertised as a FADEC. It cannot possibly
be
a
"phony fadec [sic]", since no one's called it a FADEC in the first
place.

Well, the ones that have engines dying at 700 hours are a lot
frigging
louder than the ones that think it works just fine.

I haven't seen any evidence to even buttress that statement. But even
if
it's true, how's that anything other than basic human nature? Why
would
someone for whom everything's going fine invest a huge effort
complaining
about that? Who do you expect to hear from, if not from the few folks
who
have had engine problems?

Pete